-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL
- Thread starter Nuclear Fusion
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
JeffK
Well-Known Member
We've talked about this before, if Tesla doesn't hold back on the battery and motors then the Model 3 should be able to out accelerate the Model S since it's both lighter and more aerodynamic.
Musk has stated there will be a DL version.
The question is the battery size.
If not software limited, definitely will be sub 3 seconds, if not 2.5
It won't out accelerate the MS, because when the M3 is released the MS will also benefit from the new 2170 batteries, meaning a 110-120kWh battery in 2017/18.
I don't agree with this logic. A Mercedes S500 costs more than an AMG C63, but it is slower
JeffK
Well-Known Member
mass is mass... you can't fight physics.
Given the same voltage, current, and motors, the Model 3 will always beat the Model S. Battery capacity has nothing to do with it as long as there's adequate cooling and they are still well below max C.
Given the same voltage, current, and motors, the Model 3 will always beat the Model S. Battery capacity has nothing to do with it as long as there's adequate cooling and they are still well below max C.
not really.. maybe with 160kw, the problem is that gaining 0.1 second at the 2.5 level is 10 time more difficult that getting 1 second in the range of 6 seconds since the acceleration equation is quadratic
andrerodpt
Member
I believe Elon said that there will be a, quote, "Performance" version of the Model 3 that will be faster than the base version. He did not say that there will be a Model 3 "D Ludicrous" which is how I interpret your "DL".
Elon has also stated that the S and X will have unique features not available on the Model 3 because of the need to keep the two model lines separate and to justify the higher S and X price compared to the 3. At this point we don't know what those distinguishing characteristics will be.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Do you think its to justify the higher S and X price....or do you think its to keep the M3 - affordable?
Because what I heard is that the MS and MX were a test bed for the M3 and/or MY.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
JeffK
Well-Known Member
There's no way uncle Elon would allow such an atrocity!
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
There is absolutely no reason to software limit the M3 to have less performance than the Model S. The performance version of the Model 3 will undoubtedly have similar enough profit margins to the Model S that the volume of sales should more than make up for a drop in MSPDL sales.
Or even better - price it above MS PxxxDL?
Model S is not sacred. If Tesla will not create a better car than S, somebody else will and eat tesla's lunch.
There is a limit to the size of the battery pack in the Model 3, both on a weight basis and on a volumetric basis. As a result, I'm expecting the base battery pack to be around 50-55 kWh, and the bigger pack to be around 70 kWh.
Right now, Ludicrous mode allows a discharge c-rate around 5.6C. Assuming that the increase in specific energy expected with a battery chemistry change in the Model 3 doesn't negatively affect the discharge c-rate (not necessarily a safe assumption), then we're looking at 5.6 * 70 = 392 kW, or 525 hp. But the battery pack likely weighs in at 390 kg, making the total weight of the car around 4,200 pounds. A P90D+L and P100D+L are around 5,000 pounds, so that's a lot of weight shaved off.
I can definitely see under 3 seconds if these parameters hold. Maybe 2.8 or 2.9?'
Note that for c-rate discharge, I would use the entire pack's capacity, but for range calculation, one has to factor in the anti-bricking buffer of about 5%.
Note... thinking about it more, I'm thinking the upper end is more likely 65 kWh, or 488 hp, and getting about 2.9 or 3.
Right now, Ludicrous mode allows a discharge c-rate around 5.6C. Assuming that the increase in specific energy expected with a battery chemistry change in the Model 3 doesn't negatively affect the discharge c-rate (not necessarily a safe assumption), then we're looking at 5.6 * 70 = 392 kW, or 525 hp. But the battery pack likely weighs in at 390 kg, making the total weight of the car around 4,200 pounds. A P90D+L and P100D+L are around 5,000 pounds, so that's a lot of weight shaved off.
I can definitely see under 3 seconds if these parameters hold. Maybe 2.8 or 2.9?'
Note that for c-rate discharge, I would use the entire pack's capacity, but for range calculation, one has to factor in the anti-bricking buffer of about 5%.
Note... thinking about it more, I'm thinking the upper end is more likely 65 kWh, or 488 hp, and getting about 2.9 or 3.
Last edited:
There is no doubt in my mind that all Teslas could go much faster than they can now. This has been confirmed to me by someone who has first-hand information.
How much the performance is limited by:
a) Software restrictions
b) Current hardware (motors, batteries)
c) Tesla not wanting to allow owners to go that fast
is all up for discussion, but speaking personally I would consider it a very big letdown if the M3 was restricted in some way so it couldn't accelerate at least as quickly as the current fastest MS.
What I'm saying is that in 18 month's time, which is the very earliest I would expect to be able to order my M3, I expect the S will be even quicker than the MS P100D and the 3 will be made available with the options to allow it go 0-60 in 2.5 secs or thereabouts.
That would be good enough for me, although I'm the sort of person who would always want more power and quicker acceleration if they could get it (at a reasonable price).
I have a small concern and that is similar to the Autopilot discussions. i.e. if we have several accidents where drivers haven't used the performance responsibly, it will lead to outcries from all sorts of Nimbies wanting restrictions, new laws etc. to stop us enjoying something we've waited a long time and paid a lot of money for.
I trust Elon will resist any pressure to restrict performance, after all he did say "We don't make slow cars!"
How much the performance is limited by:
a) Software restrictions
b) Current hardware (motors, batteries)
c) Tesla not wanting to allow owners to go that fast
is all up for discussion, but speaking personally I would consider it a very big letdown if the M3 was restricted in some way so it couldn't accelerate at least as quickly as the current fastest MS.
What I'm saying is that in 18 month's time, which is the very earliest I would expect to be able to order my M3, I expect the S will be even quicker than the MS P100D and the 3 will be made available with the options to allow it go 0-60 in 2.5 secs or thereabouts.
That would be good enough for me, although I'm the sort of person who would always want more power and quicker acceleration if they could get it (at a reasonable price).
I have a small concern and that is similar to the Autopilot discussions. i.e. if we have several accidents where drivers haven't used the performance responsibly, it will lead to outcries from all sorts of Nimbies wanting restrictions, new laws etc. to stop us enjoying something we've waited a long time and paid a lot of money for.
I trust Elon will resist any pressure to restrict performance, after all he did say "We don't make slow cars!"
wallet.dat
Member
Software limitations aside, I believe the physical limiting factor is the inverter. The S/X uses a 320kW inverter, while the Mod3 will employ a "300kW+" unit. Back of the napkin numbers suggest that the 3 will be capable of making at least 94% the power that the S/X does... all in a lighter platform.
andrerodpt
Member
And I think we may very soon reach the limit of the tires. How can they get the S to 60 in 2,5s with "stock" tires is beyond comprehension. But there is a limit.
Similar threads
